9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is that this sugar syrup is excisable and duty on this intermediate product falling under Chapter Heading No. 1702.30 of CETA, 1985 is payable. A show cause notice was issued alleging that the Respondents evaded payment of Central Excise Duty during the period December 1992 to August 1997, of Rs. 89,78,618/-. Penalty under Section 11A was proposed and extended period of limitation was invoked. 3.The Respondents contended before the Commissioner that : (a) The process starting with preparation of solution till addition of alcohol is continuous process; (b) Sugar syrup remains in the state of over-saturated solution due to large proportion of sugar in pure water and is therefore not a commercially viable product; (c) It is not marketable a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... diate stage is dutiable; that similar goods are marketed; that the product has a shelf life; that for a product to be marketable it need not be bought and sold in the market; that it is enough if the goods are being capable of marketed. In regard to limitation it was argued that the Respondents did not file a classification declaration and that they removed the goods without payment of duty and therefore larger period of limitation is invocable. 6.Heard both sides. 7.It is seem from the Commissioner's order that he set aside the demand for December 1992 to May 1997 on the ground that it is barred by limitation applying the ratio of the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Padmini Products - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 195. In this case the Suprem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om sugar and water does not fall under Chapter Heading 1702.30. The ld. Advocate for the Respondent relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Venkatesh Beverages - 2001 (128) E.L.T. 75 wherein the Tribunal held that sugar solution at intermediate stage containing less than 65% sugar by weight should not be considered as sugar solution. The Tribunal held that such a solution does not pass the test of marketability. Further, the Tribunal in the case of Pfizer Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III - 2002 (146) E.L.T. 477 held that proof of marketability of other kind of sugar syrups cannot be cited in support of the contention that an intermediate product such as the present one; is marketable. 10.We have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
